fishcount.org.ukhttp://fishcount.org.uk
towards more humane commercial fishingSun, 12 Mar 2017 19:16:53 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1New UK campaigning websitehttp://fishcount.org.uk/welfare-of-crustaceans/new-campaigning-website-uk
http://fishcount.org.uk/welfare-of-crustaceans/new-campaigning-website-uk#commentsSun, 12 Mar 2017 18:45:35 +0000adminhttp://fishcount.org.uk/?page_id=15363Crustacean Compassion is a new UK website is launched to campaign for the humane treatment of decapod crustaceans and their legal protection in the UK. They note that other countries including New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland include decapod crustaceans in their animal welfare legislation in the food preparation and restaurant trade.

“We know that crabs aren’t the cuddliest of campaign mascots. But that’s not what we’re about. We are an evidence-based campaign group who believe it’s unfair, unscientific, and legally inconsistent that current animal welfare legislation only covers animals who wear their bones on the inside.

“The humane stunning of farmed fish is necessary to remove fear, pain and distress at the time of killing. FAWC believes that all farmed fish should be stunned before killing, whether or not death accompanies the stun (as in stun/kill methods) or when death follows some short time after the stun but before the fish has the time to regain consciousness.“

Stunning may be achieved percussively (by a blow to the head) or electrically. The FAWC report argues that the following methods of killing cause suffering and are therefore unacceptable:

leaving fish to asphyxiate or bleed to death with prior stunning

killing with carbon dioxide and

killing by rapid chilling.

The FAWC report contains 6 tables which describe the principle humane methods that have been developed for salmon, trout, halibut and tilapia, together with descriptions of inhumane methods still used in the EU and beyond for comparability. The information has been collated from peer-reviewed publications.

Farmed fish slaughter in the UK

FAWC notes the large number of animals impacted by UK fish farming and estimates that over 100 million fish are being grown in farms at any particular time. [Fishcount estimates that up to 110 million farmed fish were killed for food in the UK in 2010]

FAWC believes that, in the UK, salmon, trout and flatfish are normally percussively or electrically stunned at slaughter. In the UK industry, the normal method of stunning/killing salmon and larger trout is to apply a mechanical percussive stun from which the fish will not recover. Smaller trout are normally stunned electrically with sufficient current and duration to disrupt their respiration for long enough to cause death. Flatfish are usually stunned/killed with a percussive blow.

“The use of fish carries with it an ethical responsibility to ensure the welfare of such animals to the greatest extent practicable”

and that

“as a general principle, farmed fish should be stunned before killing, and the stunning method should ensure immediate and irreversible loss of consciousness. If the stunning is not irreversible, fish should be killed before consciousness is recovered.“

FAWC notes the publications of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concerning welfare during slaughter for several species of farmed fish:

The welfare of farm animals during slaughter is covered by the European Council Regulation No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, which came into force on 1 January 2013. In the UK, this will be supported by domestic legislation (2012 in Scotland and 2014 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

Under this Regulation, fish are covered by the key principle that “Animals should be spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering during their killing and related operations” (Article 3(1)). However, Regulation 1099/2009 specifically excludes detailed provisions for fish, which means that inhumane killing methods are not explicitly prohibited – FAWC calls for this to be addressed.

An EU Commission report on the possibility of introducing certain requirements regarding the protection of fish at the time of killing, taking into account animal welfare aspects as well as the socioeconomic and environmental impacts, is due to be submitted to the European Parliament and to the EU Council no later than 8 December 2014. This may be accompanied by legislative proposals for the protection of farmed fish at the time of killing.

FAWC recommendations

The FAWC report makes several recommendations relating to use of humane methods of killing and for reducing welfare impact during pre-slaughter feed withdrawal, crowding, handling and transport.

The FAWC report calls on the EU to include detailed provisions for the protection of farmed fish at time of killing. The tables 1-6 in the FAWC report are set out in the format of Annex 1 of European Council Regulation 1099/2009 to indicate how parameters for fish might be included in welfare at killing legislation.

The welfare of farmed fish during rearing is covered by Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes which has a general requirement that animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. However, as with Council Regulation No. 1099/2009, fish are excluded from the detailed provisions set out in its Annexes. FAWC has called for this to be addressed in its separate Opinion on the Welfare of Farmed Fish (2014).

]]>http://fishcount.org.uk/farmed-fish-welfare/farmed-fish-slaughter/uk-fawc-calls-for-eu-to-end-inhumane-farmed-fish-slaughter/feed0Electrical stunning of crustaceanshttp://fishcount.org.uk/welfare-of-crustaceans/electrical-stunning
http://fishcount.org.uk/welfare-of-crustaceans/electrical-stunning#commentsFri, 31 Jan 2014 14:00:20 +0000adminhttp://fishcount.org.uk/?page_id=13609A Norwegian study1 recommended electrical stunning prior to killing, which can render the animal unconscious within a second, as the most humane way to dispatch crabs.

Research at Bristol University concluded that crabs and lobsters can be stunned with a current at 110 V, 50 Hz and an ampage of respectively 1.3 (edible brown crab) and 1.0 (lobsters)2 cited in 3. Robb argues these currents cause a sufficient period of insensibility for the crustaceans to be killed by immediate boiling.

The Crustastun.

The Crustastun machine, developed in the UK, has been in commercial use for several years. There is version for stunning in batch which can stun 2 tonnes of shellfish per hour (video available here) and a single stunner for restaurants (video available here). The following clip describes how the single stunner works:

The Crustastun employs a voltage of 110 V at 50 Hz and, according to a 2005 report3, delivers currents substantially greater than Robb’s recommendation. The duration of the stun is programmed at 10 seconds for crabs and 5 seconds for lobsters. According to this report, this kills as well as stuns the animal ensuring no recovery before death.

Further research conducted at Glasgow University suggests, according to the authors, that the Crustastun causes no additional measurable stress to the animal (as evidenced by blood lactate levels) above that caused by handling4 and that the result of the Crustastun is to silence the central nervous system 5,6 without recovery. This conclusion is based on electrophysiological readings of exposed nerves in Crustastunned crabs and lobsters and is supported by the finding that induced autotomy (shedding of legs in response to harmful stimuli or damage) never occurred and has been found not to occur when the device is used commercially.

The Crustastun is recommended by celebrity chefs, such as Raymond Blanc, and it is reported that Waitrose, Tesco and major supermarkets have insisted that all shellfish products supplied to them are dispatched using this method7.

Stansas commercial stunner
In a separate development, scientists in Norway have adapted the commercial dry stunner for fish (Stansas, from the equipment manufacturer Seaside) for the humane killing of edible crabs in bulk. This new technology is in line with new Norwegian animal welfare regulation and allows for easier handling of the animals during processing8.

According to a report on this stunner9, it was found that that in order to stun a crab within 1 second, the voltage must be 220 V at 50 Hz AC and this must be maintained for at least 10 seconds to prolong the period of unconsciousness. The researchers recommend that the stun duration should not exceed 20 seconds (to avoid local heating, a quality issue) but that the animals should be immediately killed, e.g. by boiling. The authors also concluded that crabs could be killed, following electrical stunning, by carving or by storage in ice or ice slurry, but it is not clear that these would in fact kill quickly enough to prevent any recovery of consciousness.

In contrast to the Crustastun, these recommended stun parameters for the Stansas do not kill. The stun also failed to avoid autotomy. Perhaps the reason for the difference in effects between the Stansas and Crustastun is the former involves a lower current. In the Stansas, current flow in the first second of stunning at 220 V AC varied between 0.65 to 2.2 Amps whereas the Crustastun reportedly delivers a higher current (average current ranging from 2.9 to 9.0 Amps for crabs3). Presumably design of the Crustastun avoids the local burning issue either because the duration is no longer than 10 seconds or because the design provides a wider area of electrical contact.

4. Neil, D. and Thompson, J., 2012. The stress induced by the Crustastun™ process in two commercially important decapod crustaceans: the edible brown Cancer pagurus and the European lobster Homarus gammarus. Scientific report. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine at the School of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow. Accessed on 16 November 2013 at http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/81433/1/81433.pdf.

5. Neil, D., 2012. The effect of the Crustastun™ on nerve activity in crabs and lobsters. Scientific report. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine at the School of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow. Accessed on 16 November 2013 at http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/81428/1/81428.pdf.

6. Neil, D., 2012. The effect of the Crustastun™ on nerve activity in two commercially important decapod crustaceans: the edible brown Cancer pagurus and the European lobster Homarus gammarus. Scientific report. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine at the School of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow. Accessed on 16 November 2013 at http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/81430/1/81430.pdf.

Humane slaughter of animals has been defined for fish by the Humane Slaughter Association as follows:

“As with mammals, a humane slaughter is one that results in an immediate loss of consciousness, or if slow acting, induces unconsciousness without discomfort or pain. This unconsciousness should persist until death intervenes.” 1

Methods that are not humane in themselves, such as boiling, should be preceded by humane stunning to render the animal unconscious (i.e. to anaesthetise) throughout the killing process.

This page describes methods of stunning/killing crustaceans according to how well they meet these criteria for humane slaughter, i.e. methods that:

meet the humane criteria (electrical stunning, AQUI-S)

do not but, being faster, are likely to be less inhumane (piercing of ganglia, splitting, high pressure killing)

are clearly inhumane (most methods including boiling, drowning, live carving/dismemberment)

are often claimed to humanely stun or kill but for which evidence is lacking or contrary (chilling, freezing).

For comparison, the methods for humane stunning/killing of fish are as follows:

percussive stunning (a blow to the head)2, 3

spiking the brain2

electrical stunning2, 3 and

use of food-grade anaesthetics (AQUI-S)3, 4.

The only method of stunning/killing crabs and lobsters that can produce an immediate loss of consciousness (within 1 second) is electrical stunning, enabling them to be killed without pain. In contrast to fish and other vertebrates, percussive stunning and spiking are not suitable methods for causing immediate loss of consciousness in crustaceans, due to the nervous system being less centralised.

The methods of spiking (crabs) and splitting (lobsters) are analogous to the spiking method of killing fish but take several seconds to perform. These methods are described below separately (along with high pressure killing of lobsters) since, although not immediate and not guaranteed to be pain-free, they are considerably faster than the other commercial methods except electrical stunning. Research suggests the humane killing of crustaceans may also be achieved using the fish anaesthetic AQUI-S which, though the process takes several minutes, appears not to cause distress.

Assessing welfare of stunning and killing methods

For any stunning/killing method to be considered humane, it is necessary to demonstrate that it either kills the animal, or that it causes unconsciousness that lasts until death. If the method does not cause an immediate loss of consciousness, then it is also necessary to demonstrate that it does not cause pain or distress before the animal becomes unconscious.

Pain and distress, or their absence, cannot be directly measured in animals and indirect evidence must be used, which includes the animal’s behavioural response and can also include the physiological response and electrical readings of brain or nerve activity. Behaviour is arguably the “best window” for inferring an animal’s emotional state 5 cited in 6 and is also the easiest to measure; however evidence based purely on behaviour is not always reliable since paralysis can occur without anaesthesia. Does an animal’s still behaviour indicate anaesthesia or is the animal simply paralysed?

Stress behaviour observed in crabs and lobsters includes trying to escape, thrashing and autotomy. Autotomy is a behavioural response in which limbs or other body parts are shed by the animal in response to damage or capture, or to stop the spread of potentially harmful stimuli to the rest of the body7 cited in 8. In a study of killing methods for Australian giant crab, treatment was considered to have caused pain when crabs dropped limbs, tore at their appendages or abdomens, became tensed and rigid or appeared to have muscle spasms.9

In his experiments on the killing of edible crabs, Baker10 stated that crabs only perform autotomy when they are vigorous and Baker stressed the need to study the effects of killing methods on vigorous animals.

Humane methods of killing crustaceans

Electrical stunning
A study in 201011 found electrical stunning to be the most efficient (i.e. humane) stunning method for edible crabs when compared with common commercial methods such as boiling, chilling, freezing, gassing (CO2) and immersion in salt solutions:

“Electrical stunning turned out the most efficient stunning method for edible crabs. With sufficient electrical current the animal could be rendered unconscious within 1 second”.

The Crustastun is a device, developed in the UK, for the humane electrical stunning and killing of crustaceans, including crabs, lobsters and crayfish. According to researchers at Glasgow University, the Crustastun causes no stress to the animal (as evidenced by blood lactate levels) above that caused by handling12 and that the result of the Crustastun is to silence the central nervous system immediately (within 1 second) without recovery13, 14. This conclusion is based on electrophysiological readings of exposed nerves in ‘Crustastunned’ crabs and lobsters and is supported by the finding that induced autotomy (shedding of legs) never occurred and has been found not to occur when the device is used commercially.

In a separate development, scientists in Norway have adapted the commercial dry stunner for fish (Stansas, from the equipment manufacturer Seaside) for the humane electrical stunning of edible crabs in bulk15. Crabs must be killed immediately after stunning (e.g. by boiling) to prevent recovery of consciousness.

Anaesthetics
A study into the killing of Australian giant crab Pseudocarcinus gigas9 concluded they could be killed without apparent distress by use of the food-grade anaesthetic AQUI-S (or by the anaesthetic clove oil, which also has an anaesthetic effect in humans16 cited in 8, 31) added to the seawater tank in which they were held. Both these anaesthetics took 25 minutes or more to kill, during which the crabs did not show aversive behaviour and autotomy did not occur (i.e. they did not lose limbs). While recognising that absence of behavioural indicators of distress does not necessarily mean that killing is painless, since it is the case that an animal can be paralysed while still able to feel pain, the author concludes:

“…clove oil and AQUI-STM appear promising as treatments for the humane killing of crabs for human consumption”.

The fish anaesthetic AQUI-S is marketed as a water dispersible liquid anaesthetic for fin fish, crustaceans and shell fish that can be used for humane killing and also to remove stress from live transport and handling procedures17. AQUI-STM is approved in Australia, Chile, New Zealand, Korea, Costa Rica and Honduras with a zero withholding period and is reportedly the only aquatic anaesthetic that can be used for harvesting fish in those countries17. It was approved in Norway in 201317.

Less slow (and therefore likely to be less inhumane) methods of killing crustaceans

The following methods are reported to take several seconds (ranging from 6 to up to 15) to kill. Since 6 seconds is far from instant, they cannot be considered humane. However, being considerably faster that most commercial methods, they are likely to be less inhumane.

Piercing of ganglia (spiking)
A research article published in 1955 describes a study by Baker10, conducted under the auspices of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, to investigate methods of killing crabs. At a time prior to the development of electrical stunning for crustaceans, Baker concluded that piercing both of the crab’s two main nerve centres (the brain or posterior ganglion together with the ventral nerve mass or anterior ganglion) was the most humane method then available:

“The following methods intended to render crabs (Cancer pagurus) insensible before boiling were tried: immersion in strong salt solution, immersion in tap water, gradual increase of the temperature to boiling, and piercing of the brain and ventral nerve-mass with a steel-pointed awl. The responses of the crab to stimuli, especially the autotomy reaction on boiling, were carefully observed. The experiments showed that the best method is to pierce the brain and ventral-nerve mass. It is important to hold the awl at the proper angles when inserting it in the two positions”.

The nervous system of crustaceans consists of individual ganglia (well-defined clusters of nerve cells) connected along a main ventral nerve cord. In the crab, the nervous system is condensed into two main ganglia 8 (the posterior ganglion and the anterior ganglion). Crabs can be killed by piercing both these ganglia using an awl. Because both the two nerve centres must be destroyed, as compared to spiking the brain in fish, the process is not instant and therefore not humane. According to a study into the welfare impact of commercial killing methods for edible crab, the process must be performed by a skilled person and will take from 10 to 15 seconds.

Splitting (lobsters)
The nervous system of the lobster is less centralised than that of the crab and lobsters cannot be stunned by piercing the brain. In the lobster, a chain of ganglia (sometimes called ‘mini brains’18) with interconnecting nerves runs through the animals’ longitudinal midline (the length of the body)8. The splitting method seeks to destroy the central nervous system by cutting through all the ganglia with a sharp knife and involves cutting the animal into two identical longitudinal halves, starting at the front of the head and continuing through the thorax and straight down through the midline of the animal where the nervous system is located. Details on proper cutting methods, followed by rapid removal of visible nerve centres, is described in the Aquatic Animal Welfare Guidelines of the Australian National Aquatic Council19, which states that the process should take no longer than 10 seconds.

The method of splitting is demonstrated in the following clip from a promotional video for the Crustastun28:

High pressure killing
It has been reported in the media that some lobsters processed in the US are killed by high pressure in hydrostatic pressure processors20. The lobsters are crushed to death quickly in big batches, at the same time separating their meat from the shells without having to cook it. It is claimed that they are killed within 6 seconds21, though it is unclear if there is any evidence to support this.

A welfare advantage of this method is that, by enabling the killing of bacteria without cooking21, it could reduce the transport of live lobsters to restaurants and supermarkets. The method could presumably be made humane if the lobsters were electrically stunned before high pressure treatment.

Methods that are clearly inhumane

In its review of killing methods for animals used for research purposes22, a panel of scientists (the Animal Health and Welfare Scientific (AHAW) Panel) commissioned by the European Food Safely Authority, has concluded that the following methods of killing crustaceans are likely to cause pain and distress:

Any procedure involving the separation of the abdomen (tailpiece) from the thorax (tailing) or removal of tissue, flesh or limbs while the crustacean is still alive and fully conscious (including when in a chilled state).

Placing crustaceans in cold water and heating the water to boiling point.

Placing live crustaceans into hot or boiling water.

Placing live marine crustaceans in fresh water as they die from severe osmotic shock.

Unfocussed microwaves to the body as opposed to focal application to the head.

The first 4 of these are common commercial methods of killing crabs and lobsters used for food, including live carving, and are discussed below. Other commercial methods used that are also likely to cause distress include immersion in strong salt solution and immersion into water saturated with carbon dioxide, which are also discussed below.

Live carving and dismemberment
Another method for killing and processing crabs is carving11. As noted above, the AHAW panel of scientists has concluded that removing tissue, flesh or limbs from a conscious crustacean, even in a chilled state, is likely to cause pain. Roth and Øines report that edible crabs are often killed by carving without prior effective stunning, e.g. where the method intended to stun is chilling, which their experiments showed to be ineffective (see below). Conscious crabs are commonly placed into machines which rip of appendages before the body is split in two and the separate body parts are processed into food11. Some lobsters are killed by “tailing” whereby the body is severed, between the fore-half (cephalothorax) and abdomen, with a knife23. Lobsters are also killed by tearing off the limbs or head while the animal is still conscious, as are crayfish and languostine28.

Cutting into a conscious crustacean, other than by the correctly-performed methods of spiking and splitting discussed above, will clearly cause pain until the animal eventually dies because the central nervous system has not been destroyed.

Boiling and heating
As noted above, the AHAW panel of scientists has concluded that placing crustaceans into boiling water, or into cold water and heating the water to boiling point, are likely to cause pain and distress.

Placing conscious crabs and lobsters into boiling water causes them to shed their limbs (autotomy)23, 24 which is reportedly a common problem. A study by Baker10, published in 1955, found that crabs all crabs treated this way lost legs during boiling. In a later study25 cited in 26, Baker found that lobsters in full vigour, when they are plunged into boiling water, behave wildly, whipping their tails and trying to escape.

Roth and Øines11, predicted that edible crabs subjected to boiling will sense heat for a duration of 2.5 minutes, based on measurements of internal temperature. Chilling the crab to 2 °C prior to boiling will increase this duration to 3 minutes.

It has, in the past, been argued that placing crabs and lobsters in cold water and slowly heating the water to boiling point results in a loss of consciousness that is induced without pain before the animals is killed by boiling. However, in a study of this method for killing lobsters25 cited in 26, Baker observed aversive behaviour indicating distress. Baker researched bringing 14 lobsters slowly to the boil and the animals flipped violently as the temperature increased. The three lobsters heated in tap water regurgitated at least twice during the first ten minutes. Baker noted shaking, trembling and other uncoordinated movements; a general struggling, writhing or convulsive movement of the whole body without locomotion.

A later study by Gardner9 found that when Australian giant crabs were heated to 24 °C, in an attempt to anaesthetise them, the animals appeared uncomfortable and attempted to climb from the container as the temperature rose. Although apparently paralysed at 24 °C, their limbs constantly twitched.

Drowning (immersion of marine species into freshwater)
As noted above, the AHAW panel of scientists has concluded that placing live marine crustaceans into fresh water to die from osmotic shock is likely to cause pain and distress.

Killing marine crustaceans by immersion in freshwater is sometimes called “drowning” and will result in eventual death from loss of salts from the blood. Although low salinity conditions have the effect of aiding in the prevention of limb loss in lobsters, this treatment is likely to cause distress. Research has shown that immersing crabs in fresh water causes aversive behaviour9, 10. Gardner9 reported that Australian giant crabs immersed in freshwater became very active after 10 minutes, they tore at their abdomens and walking legs and autotomy occurred. The time taken for crabs to be killed by this method is long: 3 to 5 hours at 10 °C or at least 30 minutes in water heated to 38-49 °C, according to one author27.

Salt baths
Aaser reported that placing lobsters in common salt solution (35%) for a short period (1 minute or less) prior to boiling reduced the behaviour during boiling to a single flip of the abdomen29 cited in 10. Baker tried the same test on edible crabs, placing them in salt water for 10 minutes prior to boiling. The crabs displayed some abnormal behaviours (antenna immediately strongly retracted, followed by stillness followed by feeble walking) and, although spontaneous behaviour had ceased before 10 minutes had elapsed, autotomy occurred when the crabs were subsequently boiled10. Baker concluded that although placing these crabs in salt water will eventually result in death, there is no likelihood this slow death would be painless.

A study, by Roth and Øines11, into killing of edible crabs attempted to stun edible crabs by placing them into salt brine of 17% NaCl, 5% KCl or 20% KCl. The crabs exposed to 17% NaCl and 5% KCl displayed aversive behaviour, vigorously trying to escape, and were still conscious after 3 minutes (as indicated by behavioural responses to touching and handling). The crabs exposed to 20% KCl did not try to escape but took over 1 minute to lose all behavioural responses.

Carbon dioxide
Carbon dioxide has long been used to stun and kill aquatic animals, including edible crabs, according to a study by Roth and Øines11, which found carbon dioxide to be unsuitable for humane stunning. Crabs stunned in a water bath containing carbon dioxide showed aversive behaviour and some were still showing behavioural signs of consciousness when measured after 12 minutes. Gardner reported that Australian giant crabs exposed to this treatment thrashed and crushed their limbs, with some autotomy9.

Methods that are often claimed to humanely stun or kill but for which evidence is lacking or contrary

Chilling
It is often considered that crustaceans can be stunned (i.e. rendered unconscious) without distress by chilling them in air or ice/ice slurry. However, the current author finds no research to support this view and chilling is elsewhere criticised as being slow and inconsistent and likely to cause discomfort by subjecting the animal to conditions that it would normally avoid24. On the contrary, separate studies have shown chilling on ice to be ineffective in stunning edible crab11 and Australian giant crab9 (temperate species).

According to the above mentioned AHAW review22, stunning of decapods can be achieved with a minimum of distress by chilling in air and they should then be killed by spiking or splitting. Crustaceans are cold-blooded animals and therefore chilling them with an air temperature of 4 °C or below induces a state of torpor, according to the AHAW review, and chilling in air at an appropriately low temperature for a minimum of 30 minutes will eventually kill them.

AHAW also considers that stunning of decapods can be achieved with a minimum of distress by chilling in ice/ice slurry for tropical species that are susceptible to cold temperatures (in which case they should be immersed in ice slurry for a minimum of 20 min depending on size and species, the ratio of ice to water should be 3:1 and the temperature should be maintained at or below minus 1 °C). AHAW does not recommend this for temperate species, which are likely to be adapted to cold temperatures.

The current author finds no clear evidence that chilling in air or ice/ice slurry results in anaesthesia, rather than just paralysis, nor that chilling is not itself aversive. The view that chilling effectively stuns appears to be based on the observations that crustaceans subjected to chilling do not show behavioural signs of distress, such as thrashing and autotomy, seen with of other methods of killing and there have not been studies on crustaceans that measure physiological indicators of distress during chilling and various other slaughter treatments8.

While AHAW recommends that chilled crabs and lobsters should be then killed by the spiking or splitting methods discussed above, it is especially concerning that elsewhere recommendations are made to chill crabs and lobsters prior to boiling. Roth and Øines11 found chilling to be an ineffective method of stunning edible crabs prior to boiling. Crabs that were subjected to chilling on ice at 0 °C were still showing behavioural responses to stimuli when tested after 100 minutes (at which point their internal temperature was 1.8 °C). The same researchers predicted that edible crabs will remain conscious during boiling for 2.5 minutes but even longer (3 minutes) if they have first been chilled to 2 °C.

Roth and Øines also showed that edible crabs placed in a freezer at -37 °C took 30-40 minutes to lose behavioural signs of consciousness. When placed in water at 12 °C following 60 minutes in the freezer, irreversible damage had been done and none recovered. All of the crabs lost two or more legs through autotomy, indicating stress.

Gardener9 found chilling to be an ineffective method of stunning Australian giant crabs. When Australian giant crabs were chilled for 14 hours to 2 °C and 5 °C, they remained active. When chilled for 2 hours at -1.5 °C, the animals retained movement (in response to tactile stimulation) of the antennae and limbs, though parts of the limbs became frozen.

To be a credible method of humane stunning, evidence of distress-free anaesthesia from chilling needs to be demonstrated on a species by species basis. Further, it should not be solely based on behavioural indicators. As a stunning method, chilling would need to be followed by a killing method that is sufficiently fast and reliable and that avoids warming the animal.

It seems likely that chilling crustaceans in air could also cause stress from exposure to air, which has been found to stressful to crabs and lobsters in a number of investigations of physiological and immune responses during live transport30.

The welfare affect of chilling on crustaceans is also important in transport, since most crustaceans destined for live markets are chilled prior to transport30.

Summary

From the literature available, the current author concludes that:

Electrical stunning, and in particular the Crustastun, is the most humane and most reliably humane method to stun/kill crabs, lobsters and other crustaceans.

Use of the fish anaesthetic AQUI-S may offer an alternative method of humane killing in countries where it has been approved

Most commercial methods of killing are likely to cause considerable suffering. Spiking, splitting and high pressure killing seem likely to be less inhumane since the killing process is much shorter, but since they are neither immediate nor likely to be distress-free, they cannot be considered humane.

To be credible, claims that chilling can render animals unconscious without distress need to be demonstrated on a species by species basis, and should not rely solely on behavioural indicators since it is possible that chilling causes paralysis without anaesthesia. Chilling should be followed by a sufficiently fast and reliable killing method that does not involve warming the animal.

12. Neil, D. and Thompson, J., 2012. The stress induced by the Crustastun™ process in two commercially important decapod crustaceans: the edible brown Cancer pagurus and the European lobster Homarus gammarus. Scientific report. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine at the School of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow. Accessed at http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/81433/1/81433.pdf on 16 November 2013.

13. Neil, D., 2012. The effect of the Crustastun™ on nerve activity in crabs and lobsters. Scientific report. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine at the School of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow. Accessed at http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/81428/1/81428.pdf on 16 November 2013.

14. Neil, D., 2012. The effect of the Crustastun™ on nerve activity in two commercially important decapod crustaceans: the edible brown Cancer pagurus and the European lobster Homarus gammarus. Scientific report. Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine at the School of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow. Accessed at http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/81430/1/81430.pdf on 16 November 2013.

There is now good evidence that crustaceans can experience pain, argues Professor Robert Elwood of Queen’s University, Belfast. Pain in crustaceans is an important area of animal welfare research because, as Professor Elwood states in the above 2012 research paper1:

“The substantial numbers of them used in the food industry and the extreme treatments to which they are exposed should indicate the potential for improved welfare if evidence of pain is found.”

Extreme treatments are not confined to methods of killing, such as boiling lobsters alive, but also include mutilations and long distance transport. In some crab fisheries, the claws are pulled off and retained whilst the animal is thrown back to the sea alive but unable to feed (2 cited in1).

The current author notes that a panel of scientists, commissioned by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), has similarly concluded that the evidence indicates decapod crustaceans (crabs, lobsters, crayfish and prawns etc) can feel pain3. In its Scientific Opinion on animals used for scientific research purposes, EFSA therefore recommended that only the most humane methods should be used when killing these animals since:

“The largest of these animals [decapod crustaceans] are complex in behaviour and appear to have some degree of awareness. They have a pain system and considerable learning ability. Little evidence is available for many decapods, especially small species. However, where sub-groups of the decapods, such as the prawns, have large species which have been studied in detail they seem to have a similar level of complexity to those described for crabs and lobsters.3“

It is elsewhere reported that crustaceans are beginning to be included in animal welfare regulation in some countries, such as Norway4 and New Zealand3. This web page describes some of the evidence presented in Professor Elwood’s 2012 paper, as well as some presented previously in a 2009 paper that he co-authored5 with Stuart Barr and Lynsey Patterson. For greater explanation and more descriptions of studies, please refer to the two papers at the top of this page.

Researching pain in crustaceans.
As has been discussed in Do fish feel pain? the key question, when researching pain in animals, is whether the animal’s response to a noxious, i.e. harmful, stimulus (“nociception”) entails an unpleasant feeling (pain). Does the animal’s response to harmful stimuli, such as heat (moving either all, or just the affected part of its body away from the source of the heat), involve pain or is it merely a reflex response without feeling? The following criteria have been suggested by various authors that might indicate the ability to feel pain. Professor Elwood’s 2012 paper discusses the last 4 while the first 4 were discussed in the 2009 paper5.

The presence of nociceptors

A ‘suitable’ central nervous system

Decreased responses with analgesics or opioids;

High level of cognitive ability

Avoidance learning;

Physiological changes;

Protective motor reactions;

Motivational trade-offs between pain and other requirements.

Nociceptors and a central nervous system.
The 2009 paper describes the central nervous system in crustaceans5. Crustaceans possess nociceptors which are packaged into cuticular extensions of the shell, called sensilla. They have a central nervous system which comprises a double ventral nerve cord linking a series of ganglia. The largest ganglia is found at the anterior end (head) and functions as the brain.

While the crustacean brain is small and differs from the vertebrate brain, this does not preclude the possibility of experiencing pain. Small brain size does not necessarily mean there is no complexity of brain function (6 cited in 1) and it is known that the same function may be performed by different anatomical structures in different types of animal. For example, crustaceans do not possess any of the visual systems found in humans, yet they have a well developed visual ability based on an entirely different CNS and receptors.

Effects of analgesics or opioids.
The 2009 paper describes the effects of opioid analgesics (pain killers) as similar to those observed in vertebrates. For example, in a study of the crab (Chasmagnathus granulatus), the animals were given an electric shock which caused a defensive threat display. Morphine injections reduced the sensitivity to electric shocks in a dose-dependent manner7. Opioids appear also to reduce the fear response in crustaceans. In another study, the normal response of escape running from a novel stimulus (a dark moving screen) was lessened by morphine8. The action of morphine on crustaceans indicates the possibility that crustaceans, like vertebrates, possess endogenous analgesics (pain killers) to regulate pain.

Cognitive ability.
Cognition is the ability to acquire and manipulate information9 cited in 5 and animals with particularly good abilities are often assumed to be more likely to experience pain6,10 cited in5. The 2009 paper 5 argues that hermit crabs:

“show an excellent ability to gather, manipulate and use information from multiple sources, indicating a higher cognitive ability than generally recognised.”

These crustaceans gather information about potential new shells and integrate that with information they have about the shell they currently occupy before deciding which is the better of the two. They use several sources of information, such as external and internal shape and size, using visual and tactile information. The following short clip shows a hermit crab move into a new shell.

Hermit crabs may also fight over the possession of shells, where one crab tries to evict another from its shell. In deciding whether or not to do this, the hermit crab uses information about its own shell, the other shell and the other shell’s occupier. Defenders assess the vigour of an attack and make decisions about whether or not to resist the attacker.

Avoidance learning.

Shore crab (Carcinus maenas). In experiments, this species rapidly learned to avoid one of two dark shelters if they had previously received a shock thereCredit: Jean-Michel Bernard.

The 2012 paper1 discusses the role of pain in learning. A reflexive response to a harmful stimulus can give an immediate protection from it. For example, when a human hand touches a hot object, the hand is involuntarily withdrawn instantly in a reflex action. Where pain is involved in a response to harmful stimuli, this is presumed to have developed to provide a longer term protection. Through an unpleasant experience of pain, an animal learns to avoid the same stimulus in future. The ability of an animal to learn to avoid something unpleasant therefore suggests that pain is involved.

Several studies described in the 2012 paper demonstrate the ability for avoidance learning in decapods:

Crabs (Chasmagnathus granulatusability) were less likely to enter a light compartment if they had previously received an electric shock there11

Shore crab (Carcinus maenas) were less likely to enter a one of two dark shelters if they had previously received a shock there12

Crayfish (Procamarus clarki) learned to associate a light signal with a shock and to avoid the shock by walking forward to the other end of a box13.

Physiological changes.
According to the 2012 paper5, decapods have a stress hormone called the Crustacean Hyperglycaemic Hormone (CHH) that functions in a way similar to corticosteroids in vertebrates. It causes glycogen to be converted to glucose and elevates levels of lactate.

Protective motor reactions.

Glass prawn (Palaemon elegans). After scientists brushed acetic acid onto one antenna, this species showed a marked increase in grooming and rubbing of the area.Credit: Christophe Quintin.

In a study of glass prawn (Palaemon elegans)14, the animals showed a marked increase in grooming of the affected antenna after scientists brushed acetic acid (or sodium hydroxide) onto one antenna, as compared to control animals brushed with water. Rubbing the antenna against the wall of their tank also increased. This type of behaviour, in response to a noxious stimulus on an area of the body, is similar to that seen in vertebrates. This behaviour, argues Professor Elwood in the 2012 paper, suggests an awareness of the specific site and is not easily explained as a reflex.

Motivational trade-offs.

Hermit crab (Pagurus Bernhardus). These crabs are extremely vulnerable when outside of their shell but will choose to leave the shell to avoid an electric shock. The strength of shock required for them to vacate partly depends on how much they value the shell compared to other shells.Credit: David Spreekmeester.

An animal that experiences pain will be motivated to avoid it. However, the animal may have other competing needs that motivate the animal to behave in a way that does not avoid the pain. For example, fish subjected to an electric shock whilst feeding are less likely to give up feeding to avoid the shock if they have been deprived of food. Motivational trade-offs imply a central decision process that is more than simple reflex and indicate the relative value to the animal.

Some studies have tested for motivational trade-off in hermit crab between the motivation to avoid an electric shock inside their shell and the motivation not to leave the protection of the shell15 & 16 cited in 1. Hermit crabs show strong preferences for particular species of shell as determined by shell choice experiments. Those in the less preferred species got out of their shell at a lower voltage than did those in the preferred species15.

A number of crabs that evacuated the shell then felt deep into the shell as if searching for the source of the noxious stimulus15 & 16 cited in 1. Some crabs walked away from their shells, leaving themselves naked and therefore vulnerable, in order to escape the noxious stimulus. They were prepared to pay this price in order to avoid being shocked.

Conclusion.
The studies noted above are consistent with the concept of pain and demonstrate that the responses to noxious, potentially tissue damaging stimuli go beyond that predicted by nociceptive reflex. Elwood argues the evidence shows there is a “strong possibility” that decapods, as well as fish, do experience pain and that

“both taxa should be treated as though they are able to experience the negative affective state of pain”.

This page describes research into electrical on-board dry (i.e. out of water) stunning of commercially caught fish. Electrical stunning is used for the humane killing of farmed fish and other animals (by causing immediate unconsciousness that lasts until death), and can also improve meat quality. For an effective stun, the parameters of the current (voltage, duration etc) need to be experimentally determined for each species and this research investigates stunning of cod, haddock, dab and plaice.

Commercially-caught fish may remain conscious [and therefore likely to be suffering] for long periods during on-board storage. Trawl-caught cod and haddock were found to be conscious when tested after 2 hours.

Fish that appear to be unconscious (not breathing, still, unresponsive to noxious stimuli, not displaying “eye roll” VOR reflex*) may still be conscious.

Advantages of on-board stunning of wild-caught fish include:

improved fish welfare

improved fish quality

fish are easier to handle during gutting/bleeding

improved health and safety environment for fishermen.

Cod and haddock can be humanely killed with a 52 VRMS dry stun lasting over 3 seconds and followed immediately by bleeding.

Dab and plaice can be humanely killed with a longer dry stun (15 seconds) followed immediately by normal slaughter processing (bleeding and then chilling).

This research into electrical on-board stunning of fish forms part of a larger Norwegian-funded project to improve the effectiveness of fish handling systems (improving fish quality and the health and safety environment for fishermen) with more “gentle” handling of fish, electrical stunning for humane slaughter and automatic bleeding. This project is discussed on this website at: Norway researches effective and humane catch processing.

Cod fish in aquarium. Measurements of brain activity indicate cod remain conscious for long periods after capture and storage out of water.Credit: Little Boffin (PeterEdin).

This study investigates survival and consciousness for cod and haddock landed aboard a trawler and subsequently stored out of water. Measurements of brain activity (EEG recordings) indicated that fish were still conscious (and therefore likely to be suffering) after two hours storage in dry bins, even though they had stopped breathing and lost the capacity to respond to noxious stimuli (e.g. scratching or pinching the tail). These findings demonstrate the huge welfare benefits of developing humane methods of stunning/killing as soon as possible after landing.

Besides improving welfare, humane slaughter methods can improve eating quality and fish that have been despached are easier and safer to handle during manual gutting than are fish that are alive, conscious and struggling:

“Preliminary experiments with on-board electro-stunning of fish on trawling boats indicated that this treatment could allow more rapid gutting and rinsing of fish. This could increase fish quality while at the same time safeguarding the health and security environment (HSE) of the fishermen.”

The second part of this study investigated use of a prototype “dry stunner” to stun trawl-caught cod and haddock before killing by bleeding. Humane slaughter requires that the electric stun causes a loss of consciousness that is both (a) immediate and (b) sufficient to last until death. In tests involving fish subjected to a short electric stun (less than 1 second), EEG recordings indicated that a 52 VRMS head-to-body stun delivered by the stunner caused an immediate loss of consciousness. In other tests, fish were subjected to longer stun (3 seconds) followed by bleeding. Subsequent EEG recordings indicated that the fish remained unconscious during the period tested, which suggests this duration may be sufficient for a humane kill.

Measurements of brain activity after landing and storage
Fish of both species were landed on the research trawl vessel and subsequently stored in dry bins. During this process, individual fish were removed at intervals of 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2 hours, and tested for a number of behavioural responses (e.g. breathing, “eye roll” VOR reflex*, response to squeezing the tail and to electrical stimulation) and for brain and heart activity by electrodes placed to take EEG and ECG measurements. Results showed that, while the number of elicited behavioural responses decreased with time, brain and heart activity was maintained. EEG recordings showed alpha and beta waves (typically shown by conscious animals) indicating that both the cod and haddock were still conscious after two hours, even though many had lost the capacity for a behavioural response.

Prototype “dry stunner” to humanely kill landed fish
A second part of this study, was to test a prototype “dry stunner” for effective stunning. The prototype stunner was similar to, but smaller than, a dry stunner model used in commercial fish farming which allows large numbers of fish to be killed quickly and humanely as they pass on a conveyor belt. The humane killing of animals requires them to be stunned i.e. rendered unconscious immediately and for the stun to last until death. When a vertebrate animal is electrically stunned, a brief current applied head-to-body or head only induces an epileptic grand mal seizure in the brain, and it is generally accepted that during such a seizure the animal is unconscious. An epileptic grand mal seizure comprises a tonic phase (severe tension of all muscles), followed by a clonic phase (uncontrolled severe muscle contractions) followed by an exhaustion phase (muscle flaccidity).

Trawl-caught cod and haddock were individually stunned (head to body) for a period of 1 second at a voltage of 52 VRMS. EEG recordings indicated that the fish underwent an epileptic grand mal seizure (during which consciousness is lost) lasting from over 1 minute. Since the current had been applied for no more than 1 second, the prototype stunner had produced an immediate stun.

In a separate test, a sample of fish were stunned at 52 VRMS for a duration of 3 seconds and immediately cut to kill by bleeding. EEG recordings indicated that the fish underwent an epileptic grand mal seizure from which brain activity did not recover in the subsequent period tested (5 minutes). The unconsciousness invoked by the 3-second stun may therefore have been of sufficient duration to last until death to give a humane kill.

Flatfish take longer to die from lack of oxygen compared to other species. European plaice (pictured) and common dab can be humanely killed with a 15 second electric stun followed immediately by bleeding/gutting and chilling, according to a study.Credit: Asbjørn Hansen.

Findings of this study, which follows on from the previous study to investigate electrical dry stunning of dab and plaice, were discussed at the UFAW International Animal Welfare Science Symposium in Barcelona, July 2013. The study found that both common dab (Limanda limanda) and European plaice (Pleuronectus platessa) can be rendered immediately unconscious from a brief head-first stun (lasting 1 second or less).

As in the previous study, EEG measurements and behavioural responses were used as indicators of consciousness. In both species, behavioural signs of consciousness followed the return of consciousness as measured by EEG recordings, suggesting that behaviourally quiescent fish may be capable of experiencing pain [this is an important finding, demonstrating (as in the previous study) that loss of consciousness in fish during processing needs to be scientifically validated rather than simply assumed on the basis that the animal is still and behaviourally unresponsive].

Flatfish, such as dab and plaice, are difficult to kill and take longer to die from lack of oxygen compared to other species (which means they suffer longer during commercial capture). When these species were stunned for 15 seconds, consciousness was lost for a period of 5 minutes, which the authors consider sufficient to last until death from normal on-board slaughter processing (bleeding/gutting and chilling).

* Vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) – a reflex eye movement that stabilizes images on the retina during head movement by producing an eye movement in the direction opposite to head movement.
]]>http://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments/research-paper-on-board-stunning/feed0Norway researches effective and humane catch processinghttp://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments/norway-researches-humane-catch-processing
http://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments/norway-researches-humane-catch-processing#commentsSat, 09 Nov 2013 14:10:48 +0000adminhttp://fishcount.org.uk/?page_id=13149Fish that has been more humanely caught could soon be on sale in some of Europe’s supermarkets following a Norwegian-funded group of projects to develop improved systems for handling fish catches.

Scientists at SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture of Norway (the largest independent research organisation in Scandinavia), are involved in several projects that aim to improve fish quality and fishermens’ health and safety with automated stunning and killing of fish, according to Dr Hanne Digre of SINTEF1.

Dr Digre explains that the ultimate goal is, by “gentle” handling, to land each fish alive and keep them so until they are stunned and killed by bleeding. Landing dead fish is bad for fish quality since, if a fish has been dead for more 30 minutes, the animal will not bleed properly. Electrical stunning (which is used for the humane slaughter of farmed fish and other animals) applied soon after landing enables the fish to be bled more rapidly and with less heavy manual work. Gentle handling of the fish prior to stunning is crucial for fish quality, with damage to fish being a cause of serious losses to the industry2. A further advantage, suggests Dr Digre, is that a switch of focus from quantity to quality could contribute to more sustainable fisheries3.

As explained in a SINTEF factsheet4, the overall project is a collaboration between scientists, vessel and equipment vendors, fishermen and seafood processors. The project aims to meet the fishing industry’s need for automated catch handling, including automatic stunning and killing of fish, that will safeguard fish quality, competitiveness and fisherman safety.

An important part of this project has been the development of a machine that electronically stuns the fish, and another machine that automatically bleeds them, enabling fish to be humanely killed soon after landing. A prototype stunner, similar to a commercial stunner used in fish farming (available on the market from the equipment supplier Seaside), has been installed on the fishing vessel Gunnar K with a favourable response from the fishermen (images of stunner and bleeding machine available on pages 9 and 13 respectively of Dr Digre’s presentation ):

“The crew of the vessel are satisfied with the system: bleeding fish is a cold, heavy task that has given many a fisherman strain injuries. When fish are lying quietly, the job is easier. Moreover, if a fish has worn itself out before it is bled, it will not bleed enough; this lowers the quality of its flesh, which both acquires a bitter taste and turns greyish during heat treatment. Last but not least, the electro-stunning system saves the crew time.5“

Dr Digre is also co-author of a paper describing research into consciousness of cod and haddock during on-board storage, and into electrical stunning for their humane slaughter, conducted by scientists from SINTEF and Wageningen University and which discussed on this website at: Research into on-board stunning of trawl-caught fishes.

http://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments/norway-researches-humane-catch-processing/feed0Recent developmentshttp://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments
http://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments#commentsSat, 09 Nov 2013 13:34:35 +0000adminhttp://fishcount.org.uk/?page_id=12499The pages below describe some important developments in the welfare of commercially-caught wild fish since the publication of the fishcount report Worse things happen at sea: the welfare of wild-caught fish in 2010.

]]>http://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments/feed0New animal welfare guidelines for Australian fishing industryhttp://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments/new-animal-welfare-guidelines-for-australian-fishing-industry
http://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments/new-animal-welfare-guidelines-for-australian-fishing-industry#commentsTue, 10 Sep 2013 15:11:52 +0000adminhttp://fishcount.org.uk/?page_id=12326The Australian Government has published new voluntary animal welfare guidelines for Australian commercial fishers.

Emperor fish, Queensland, Australia.Credit: Klaus Stiefel.

These guidelines, which have been released since December 2012 under the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy (AAWS), cover vertebrate fish species in several different capture methods.

We believe these to be the first ever welfare guidelines for commercially-caught wild fish killed at sea*. Although, at present, they don’t yet recommend humane killing methods for most wild caught fish (and we have serious concerns regarding their recommendations for live chilling), the overall approach is groundbreaking, especially the recommendations for shorter capture times and ike jime killing of larger fish.

They are presented as “living documents” to be reviewed regularly and improved as capture techniques and understanding of animal welfare develop. There are 6 sets of guidelines relating to different capture methods as follows:

The codes recognise the “close relationship between animal welfare and the quality of seafood produced” and describe the general principles in reducing bycatch and stress caused to captured fish, through choice of gears; methods of handling; and by minimising capture duration. Where it is considered practical for fish to be killed individually, iki jime (spiking) is recommended as a more humane method. A new website www.ikijime.com (including video) has been developed with support from AAWS to demonstrate this method. (Spiking, when applied correctly, can cause immediate loss of consciousness and is therefore a potentially humane method of killing fish and is one recommended by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in its welfare codes for stunning and killing of farmed fish1).

The new guidelines, being voluntary and general in scope, are further limited by having been written, in collaboration with industry representatives, to “to ensure that the animal welfare guide lines did not contradict what industry applies in practice2.” As such they fall short from prescribing humane slaughter methods for fish where individual killing is not considered practical. Further, the recommendations they do make on killing (discussed below) may not be the best options for mitigating pain and distress. The guidelines on line fishing make no recommendations on choice of bait and fail to discourage use of bait fish, even the use of live bait fish impaled on hooks.

The guidelines recommend that exposure to air should be minimised and fish placed in refrigerated water or ice slurry as soon as possible. As stated in the above OIE codes, neither asphyxiation in air nor chilling in iced water are humane methods1. Live chilling of fish is aversive and paralyses them while leaving them sensible to pain and distress. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare has concluded that asphyxia in air and asphyxia in ice/thermal shock are not humane methods of killing fish and argues that temperate species of fish take longer to lose brain function when killed in ice than air3. Chilling fish as they suffocate may therefore increase both the severity and duration of suffering caused, compared to leaving them to suffocate in air. The recommendation to put fish in ice slurry seems to have been intended more for the benefit of quality than for animal welfare.

Fishcount.org.uk’s recommendations for improving welfare of captured fish in commercial fishing can be summarised as follows:

Reduce the duration of capture

Use gears and handling practices that reduce bycatch, stress and injury

Avoid use of purpose-caught bait fish, especially live bait

Use humane slaughter methods.

The new guidelines encourage the first two of these while failing, apart from recommending use of iki jime on fish being killed individually, on the third and fourth. However, recognising where the fishing industry is starting from, and as a starting point for beginning to address the huge welfare problems in commercial fishing, we believe these welfare codes represent an important step forward. We hope the recommendations on killing will be subject to more critical scientific examination and improvement.

* Switzerland has welfare regulation on the killing of wild-caught fish in inland waters.

3. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of the main systems of stunning and killing the main commercial species of animals, The EFSA Journal (2004), 45, 1-29. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/45.htm.

]]>http://fishcount.org.uk/recent-developments/new-animal-welfare-guidelines-for-australian-fishing-industry/feed0New fishcount presentationhttp://fishcount.org.uk/publications/new-fishcount-presentation
http://fishcount.org.uk/publications/new-fishcount-presentation#commentsSun, 18 Aug 2013 16:43:50 +0000adminhttp://fishcount.org.uk/?page_id=12430In this presentation we make the case that fish suffer hugely in commercial fishing and that they need our protection, not just as resources or endangered species, but as sentient beings. The presentation contains links to short film clips on YouTube.